On 11-Sep-99, 19:44 (CDT), Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While I don't feel a real strong objection, I don't think this kind of > > stuff (rationale) belongs in the standard. It's already wordy enough. > > Well, it is not without precedence. For a lot of things in the policy, we > also give the rationale behind it. > > I think it only appears wordy because the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS syntax is > explained at lengths.
Sorry, I should have quoted exactly what I was (mildly) objecting to: The three line "why debugging symbols are good" paragraph. I'm happy with the rest of the proposal.
